Το σύστημα ταξινόμισης των τρηματοφόρων σύμφωνα με τους Loeblich and Tappan σε σύγκριση με αυτό που προτάθηκε από τη Mikhalevich = The current foraminifera classification system of Loeblich and Tappan in comparison to the proposed by Mikhalevich.
Περίληψη
Η ταξινόμηση των Tρηματοφόρων βασίζεται σε ένα συνδυασμό μορφολογικών και μοριακών δεδομένων και εξελίσσεται συνεχώς καθώς γίνονται διαθέσιμες νέες πληροφορίες. Ως προς την κατάταξή τους εμφανίζονται διαφορετικές προσεγγίσεις, σύμφωνα με όσα έχουν ήδη αναφερθεί, ως προς τη συστηματική ταξινομική θέση των πρωτόζωων.
Η πιο ολοκληρωμένη συστηματική ταξινόμηση που έχει δημοσιευτεί είναι αυτή των Loeblich and Tappan (1988), οι οποίοι κατέταξαν το σύνολο των αναγνωρισμένων γενών τρηματοφόρων στην Τάξη (Οrder) FORAMINIFERIDA και τα χώρισαν σε 12 Υποτάξεις (Suborders) με κύριο κριτήριο κατάταξης τη δομή του κελύφους των. Η Mikhalevich (2013) έχοντας ως βάση την ταξινόμηση των Loeblich and Tappan (1988) αναθεωρεί πολλά σημεία στηριγμένη τόσο σε μορφολογικά χαρακτηριστικά όσο και σε φυλογενετικά και βιοχημικά δεδομένα. Τοποθέτησε τα ίδια γένη των τρηματοφόρων στη βαθμίδα της Συνομοταξίας (Phylum) και τα διαχωρίζει σε πέντε Oμοταξίες (Classes).
Στην παρούσα εργασία πραγματοποιήθηκε η σύγκριση των δυο διαφορετικών ταξινομικών προσεγγίσεων αυτή των Loeblich and Tappan (1988) και της Mikhalevich (2013) καθώς και η ηλεκτρονική αποδελτίωση και δημιουργία βάσης δεδομένων της συστηματικής των Loeblich and Tappan, για επιστημονική χρήση.
Foraminifera have occurredcontinuously since the Cambrian, with an almost universal presence, relatively high abundance, and their fossilized shells can be relatively easily preserved. For this reason, the data deriving from their study can be statistically analysed and have various applications such as in biostratigraphy, paleoenvironmental and paleoecological studies. In addition, their living representatives provide modern ecological data that can be compared το the fossil ones, thus providing a geochemical record of paleotemperature, substrate extent and composition, sea-level changes, and other paleogeographic features. It is therefore necessary to systematically classify them in a universally accepted system.
The classification of Foraminifera is based on a combination of morphological and molecular data and is constantly evolving as new information becomes available. Regarding their classification, different approaches appear, regarding the systematic taxonomic position of protozoa.
Regarding the classification of Foraminifera, the most complete systematic taxonomy published is that of Loeblich and Tappan (1988), who classified all the recognized genera of foraminifera in the Order FORAMINIFERIDA and divided them into 12 Suborders with the main classification criterion being the structure of their test. Mikhalevich (2013) following the classification of Loeblich and Tappan (1988), revised it, based on both morphological characteristics and phylogenetic and biochemical data. She placed the same genera of foraminifera at the rank of Phylum and divided them into five Classes.
Ιn the present thesis, the two different taxonomic approaches of Loeblich and Tappan (1988) and Mikhalevich (2013) were compared. In addition, an electronic database of the systematic taxonomy of Loeblich and Tappan was created, for scientific use.
Πλήρες Κείμενο:
PDFΑναφορές
Adl, S.M., Simpson, A.G., Farmer, M.A., Andersen, R.A., Anderson, O.R., Barta, J.R., Bowser, S.S., Brugerolle, G.U.Y., Fensome, R.A., Fredericq, S. and James, T.Y., 2005. The new higher level classification of eukaryotes with emphasis on the taxonomy of protists. Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology, 52(5), pp. 399-451.
Adl, S.M., Leander, B.S., Simpson, A.G., Archibald, J.M., Anderson, O.R., Bass, D., Bowser, S.S., Brugerolle, G., Farmer, M.A., Karpov, S. and Kolisko, M., 2007. Diversity, nomenclature, and taxonomy of protists. Systematic Biology, 56(4), pp. 684-689.
Alve, E., Korsun, S., Schönfeld, J., Dijkstra, N., Golikova, E., Hess, S., Husum, K. and Panieri, G., 2016. Foram-AMBI: A sensitivity index based on benthic foraminiferal faunas from North-East Atlantic and Arctic fjords, continental shelves and slopes. Marine Micropaleontology, 122, pp. 1-12.
Anderson, O.R. and Bé, A.W.H., 1978. Recent advances in foraminiferal fine structure research. Foraminifera, 3, pp. 121-202.
Arenillas, I., Arz, J.A. and Gilabert, V., 2022. An updated suprageneric classification of planktic foraminifera after growing evidence of multiple benthic-planktic transitions. Spanish J. Palaeontol, 10.
Barras, C., Jorissen, F.J., Labrune, C., Andral, B. and Boissery, P., 2014. Live benthic foraminiferal faunas from the French Mediterranean Coast: Towards a new biotic index of environmental quality. Ecological Indicators, 36, pp. 719-743.
Bass, D., Moreira, D., López-García, P., Polet, S., Chao, E.E., von der Heyden, S., Pawlowski, J. and Cavalier-Smith, T., 2005. Polyubiquitin insertions and the phylogeny of Cercozoa and Rhizaria. Protist, 156(2), pp. 149-161.
Bender, H.E.I.K.E., Kaminski, M.A., Geroch, S. and Gasinski, M.A., 1995. Test structure and classification in agglutinated foraminifera. In Proceedings of the
Fourth International Workshop on Agglutinated Foraminifera. Grzybowski Foundation Special Publication, 3, pp. 27-70.
Bernhard, J.M., Goldstein, S.T. and Bowser, S.S., 2010. An ectobiont-bearing foraminiferan, Bolivina pacifica, that inhabits microxic pore waters: cell-biological nd paleoceanographic insights. Environmental Microbiology, 12(8), pp. 2107- 2119.
Boltovskoy, E., Scott, D.B. and Medioli, F.S., 1991. Morphological variations of benthic foraminiferal tests inresponse to changes in ecological parameters: a review. Journal of Paleontology, 65(2): 175 - 185.
Bouchet, V.M., Alve, E., Rygg, B. and Telford, R.J., 2012. Benthic foraminifera provide a promising tool for ecological quality assessment of marine waters. Ecological indicators, 23, pp. 66-75.
BouDagher-Fadel, K. M., 2015. Biostratigraphic and geological significance of planktonic foraminifera, UCL Press, p. 306.
Briguglio, A. and Hohenegger, J., 2014. Growth oscillation in larger foraminifera. Paleobiology, 40(3), pp. 494-509.
Burkhardt Jr, R. W., 2013. Lamarck, evolution, and the inheritance of acquired characters. Genetics, 194(4), pp. 793-805.
Burki, F., Roger, A.J., Brown, M.W. and Simpson, A.G., 2020. The new tree of eukaryotes. Trends in ecology & evolution, 35(1), pp. 43-55.
Cann, J.H. and De Deckker, P., 1981. Fossil Quaternary and living foraminifera from athalassic (non-marine) saline lakes, southern Australia. Journal of Paleontology, pp.660-670.
Cavalier-Smith, T., 1983. A 6-kingdom classification and a unified phylogeny. In: Endocytobiology II. Berlin (ed., DeGruyter), pp. 1027-1034.
Cavalier-Smith, T., 1998. A revised six-kingdom system of life. Biological Reviews, 73(3), pp. 203-266.
Cavalier-Smith, T., 2002. The phagotrophic origin of eukaryotes and phylogenetic classification of Protozoa. International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology, 52(2), pp. 297-354.
Cavalier-Smith, T., 2010. Kingdoms Protozoa and Chromista and the eozoan root of the eukaryotic tree. Biology letters, 6(3), pp.342-345.
Coccioni, R. and Premoli Silva, I., 2015. Revised Upper Albian–Maastrichtian planktonic foraminiferal biostratigraphy and magnetostratigraphy of the classical Tethyan Gubbio section (Italy). Newsletters on Stratigraphy, 48(1), pp. 47-90.
Conway, D.V., 2012. Marine Zooplankton of Southern Britain-Part 1: Radiolaria, Heliozoa, Foraminifera, Ciliophora, Cnidaria, Ctenophora, Platyhelminthes, Nemertea, Rotifera and Mollusca. Occasional Publication of the Marine Biological Association 25.
Corliss, J. O. 1995. The ambireginal protists and the codes of nomenclature: A brief review of the problem and of proposed solutions. Bull. Zool. Nomencl., 52, pp. 11–17.
Culver, S.J. and Lipps, J.H., 2003. Predation on and by Foraminifera. Predator—Prey Interactions in the Fossil Record, pp. 7-32.
Davis, C.V., Livsey, C.M., Palmer, H.M., Hull, P.M., Thomas, E., Hill, T.M. and Benitez- Nelson, C.R., 2020. Extensive morphological variability in asexually produced planktic foraminifera. Science Advances, 6(28), p.eabb8930.
Dimiza, M., Triantaphyllou, M., Koukousioura, O., Hallock, P., Simboura, N., Karageorgis, A. and Papathanasiou, E., 2015. The Foram Stress Index: A new tool for environmental assessment of soft-bottom environments using benthic foraminifera. A case study from the Saronikos Gulf, Greece, Eastern Mediterranean.
Ecological Indicators. 60. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.07.030.
d'Orbigny, A. D., 1826. Tableau méthodique de la classe des Céphalopodes. Annales des Sciences Naturelles Series, 1, pp. 96-314.
De Rijk, S. and Troelstra, S.R., 1997. Salt marsh foraminifera from the Great Marshes, Massachusetts: environmental controls. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 130(1-4), pp. 81-112.
Duros, P., Fontanier, C., De Stigter, H.C., Cesbron, F., Metzger, E. and Jorissen, F.J., 2012. Live and dead benthic foraminiferal faunas from Whittard Canyon (NE Atlantic): Focus on taphonomic processes and paleo-environmental applications. Marine Micropaleontology, 94, pp. 25-44.
Eynaud, F., 2011, May. Planktonic foraminifera in the Arctic: potentials and issues regarding modern and quaternary populations. In IOP Conference Series:
Earth and Environmental Science, 14(1), p. 012005, IOP Publishing.
Field, D.B., Baumgartner, T.R., Charles, C.D., Ferreira-Bartrina, V. and Ohman, M.D., 2006. Planktonic foraminifera of the California Current reflect 20th-century warming. Science, 311(5757), pp. 63-66.
Gillispie, C.C., 1958. Lamarck and Darwin in the history of science. American Scientist, 46(4), pp. 388-409.
Gould, S.J., 2002. The structure of evolutionary theory. Harvard University Press.
Harrison, P., 2009. Linnaeus as a second Adam? Taxonomy and the religious vocation. Zygon®, 44(4), 879-893.
Hayward, B.W., Le Coze, F., Vachard, D. and Gross, O., 2023. World Foraminifera Database. Accessed at https://www.marinespecies.org/foraminifera on 2023-05- 27. doi:10.14284/305.
Holt, B.G. and Jønsson, K.A., 2014. Reconciling hierarchical taxonomy with molecular phylogenies. Systematic Biology, 63(6), pp. 1010-1017.
Holzmann, M., Gooday, A.J., Siemensma, F. and Pawlowski, J., 2021. Freshwater and soil foraminifera–a story of long-forgotten relatives. Journal of Foraminiferal Research, 51(4), pp. 318-331.
Hey, J., 2001. The mind of the species problem. Trends in ecology & evolution, 16(7), pp. 326-329.
Keeling, P.J., Burger, G., Durnford, D.G., Lang, B.F., Lee, R.W., Pearlman, R.E., Roger, A.J. and Gray, M.W., 2005. The tree of eukaryotes. Trends in ecology & evolution, 20(12), pp. 670-676.
Kitazato, H. and Matsushita, S., 1996. Laboratory observations of sexual and asexual reproduction of Trochammina hadai Uchio. In Transactions and proceedings of the Paleontological Society of Japan. New series, 1996(182), pp. 454-466.
Laurin, M. and Humar, M., 2022. Phylogenetic signal in characters from Aristotle’s History of Animals. Comptes Rendus. Palevol, 21 (1), pp.1-16.
Leckie, R.M. and Olson, H.C., 2003. Foraminifera as proxies for sea-level change on siliciclastic margins. SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology), ISBN 1-56576- 084-0, p. 5–19.
Lee, J.J., 2006. Algal symbiosis in larger foraminifera. Symbiosis, 42, pp. 63-75.
LeKieffre, C., Bernhard, J.M., Mabilleau, G., Filipsson, H.L., Meibom, A. and Geslin, E., 2018. An overview of cellular ultrastructure in benthic foraminifera: New observations of rotaliid species in the context of existing literature. Marine Micropaleontology, 138, pp.12-32.
Levine, N. D., Corliss, J. O., Cox, F. E. G., Deroux, G., Grain, J., Honigberg, B. M. and Wallace, F. G., 1980. A Newly Revised Classification of the Protozoa The committee on systematics evolution of the society of protozoologists. The Journal of Protozoology, 27(1), pp. 37-58.
Linnaeus, C., 1735. Caroli Linnaei, Sveci, Doctoris Medicinae systema naturae, sive, Regna tria naturae systematice proposita per classes, ordines, genera, et species, L. Batavorum, A. T. Haak, Ex Typographia J.W. de Groot.
Lipps, J.H. and Valentine, J.W., 1970. The role of foraminifera in the trophic structure of marine communities. Lethaia, 3(3), pp. 279-286.
Lloyd, G. E. R., 1970. Early Greek Science: Thales to Aristotle. New York, W.W. Norton & Co. ISBN 0-393-00583-6.
Loeblich, A. R. and Tappan, H., 1988. Foraminiferal Genera and their classification Van Nostrand, Reinhold, New York, p. 545.
Manktelow, M., 2010. History of taxonomy. Lecture from Dept. of Systematic Biology, Uppsala University, 29.
Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Excel [Internet]. 2018. Available from: https://office.microsoft.com/excel.
Mikhalevich, V. I., 2013. New insight into the systematics and evolution of the foraminifera. Micropaleontology, pp. 493-527.
Nikolaev, S. I., Berney, C., Fahrni, J. F., Bolivar, I., Polet, S., Mylnikov, A. P., Aleshin, V. V., Petrov, N. B. and Pawlowski, J., 2004. The twilight of Heliozoa and rise of Rhizaria, an emerging supergroup of amoeboid eukaryotes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(21), pp. 8066-8071.
Oxenham, M.F., 2015. Lamarck on species and evolution. Taxonomic Tapestries, p.155.
Patterson, R.T., 1987. Arcellaceans and foraminifera from Pleistocene Lake Tecopa, California. Journal of Foraminiferal Research, 17(4), pp. 333-343.
Pawlowski, J., Holzmann, M. and Tyszka, J., 2013. New supraordinal classification of Foraminifera: Molecules meet morphology. Marine Micropaleontology, 100, pp.1- 10.
Ruggiero, M.A., Gordon, D.P., Orrell, T.M., Bailly, N., Bourgoin, T., Brusca, R.C., Cavalier-Smith, T., Guiry, M.D. and Kirk, P.M., 2015. A higher level classification of all living organisms. PloS one, 10(4), p.e 0119248.
Sabbatini, A., Morigi, C., Nardelli, M.P. and Negri, A., 2014. Foraminifera. The Mediterranean Sea: Its history and present challenges, pp. 237-256.
Sagar Prajapati, P. and Trivedi, M., 2022. A short review on Foraminifera studies: retrospective, perspective and prospective. Research Journal of Chemistry and Environment, 26, p.1.
Scamardella, J. M., 1999. Not plants or animals: a brief history of the origin of Kingdoms Protozoa, Protista and Protoctista. International Microbiology, 2(4), pp. 207-216.
Scott, D.B., Mudie, P.J., Baki, V., MacKinnon, K.D. and Cole, F.E., 1989. Biostratigraphy and late Cenozoic paleoceanography of the Arctic Ocean: foraminiferal, lithostratigraphic, and isotopic evidence. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 101(2), pp. 260-277.
Sen Gupta, B.K., 1999. Modern foraminifera. Edited by Barun K. Sen Gupta. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Simpson, A.G. and Roger, A.J., 2002. Eukaryotic evolution: getting to the root of the problem. Current Biology, 12(20), pp. R691-R693.
Simpson, A. G. and Roger, A. J., 2004. The real ‘kingdoms’ of eukaryotes. Current Βiology, 14(17), pp. R693-R696.
Stafleu, F.A., 1971. Lamarck: the birth of biology. Taxon, 20(4), pp. 397-442.
Stephenson, C.M., Hallock, P. and Kelmo, F., 2015. Foraminiferal assemblage indices: A comparison of sediment and reef rubble samples from Conch Reef, Florida, USA. Ecological Indicators, 48, pp. 1-7.
Σκούρας Ζαχαρίας, 2004. Φιλοσοφία και σύγχρονες τάσεις της βιολογίας. University Studio Press.
Thompson, P.R., 1981. Planktonic foraminifera in the western North Pacific during the past 150000 years: comparison of modern and fossil assemblages.
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 35, pp. 241-279.
Voultsiadou, E., Gerovasileiou, V., Vandepitte, L., Ganias, K. and Arvanitidis, C., 2017. Aristotle’s scientific contributions to the classification, nomenclature and distribution of marine organisms. Mediterranean Marine Science, 18(3), pp. 468- 478.
Wade, B.S., Pearson, P.N., Berggren, W.A. and Pälike, H., 2011. Review and revision of Cenozoic tropical planktonic foraminiferal biostratigraphy and calibration to the geomagnetic polarity and astronomical time scale. Earth-Science Reviews, 104(1-3), pp. 111-142.
Waelbroeck, C., Labeyrie, L., Michel, E., Duplessy, J.C., Mcmanus, J.F., Lambeck, K., Balbon, E. and Labracherie, M., 2002. Sea-level and deep water temperature changes derived from benthic foraminifera isotopic records. Quaternary science reviews, 21(1-3), pp. 295-305.
Whittaker, R.H., 1969. New Concepts of Kingdoms of Organisms: Evolutionary relations are better represented by new classifications than by the traditional two kingdoms. Science, 163(3863), pp. 150-160.
Winsor, M. P., 2001. Cain on Linnaeus: the scientist-historian as unanalysed entity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 32(2), pp. 239-254.
Winsor, M. P., 2003. Non-essentialist methods in pre-Darwinian taxonomy. Biology and Philosophy, 18, pp. 387-400.
Woese, C.R. and Fox, G.E., 1977. Phylogenetic structure of the prokaryotic domain: the primary kingdoms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 74(11), pp. 5088-5090.
Woese, C.R., Kandler, O. and Wheelis, M.L., 1990. Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 87(12), pp.4576-4579.
Wollenburg, J.E., Bijma, J., Cremer, C., Bickmeyer, U. and Zittier, Z.M.C., 2021. Permanent ectoplasmic structures in deep-sea Cibicides and Cibicidoides taxa long-term observations at in situ pressure. Biogeosciences, 18(12), pp. 3903- 3915.
Εισερχόμενη Αναφορά
- Δεν υπάρχουν προς το παρόν εισερχόμενες αναφορές.